List translation keys in a Tolgee project. Returns up to 100 keys per page. Use search_keys to find specific keys by name or translation text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Optional: page number (0-based, default 0) | |
| branch | No | Optional: branch name | |
| projectId | No | ID of the project (required for PAT, auto-resolved for PAK) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the pagination limit ('Returns up to 100 keys per page'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not describe authentication requirements, error handling, or default branch behavior, though for a read-only list tool this is moderately comprehensive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is exactly two sentences, with the first clearly stating the primary purpose and the second providing pagination and an explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward list tool with no output schema and optional parameters, the description covers the core purpose, pagination behavior, and differentiation from search_keys. It does not explain return values or what happens if projectId is omitted, but the schema and context signals fill some gaps. Overall it is adequately complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema; the pagination detail slightly informs the 'page' parameter but is largely redundant with the schema's own description. It does not compensate for any gaps because there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List translation keys in a Tolgee project' with a specific verb and resource. It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool search_keys by indicating it is for listing all keys rather than searching by name/text, which differentiates it effectively.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs the alternative: 'Use search_keys to find specific keys by name or translation text.' This implies when not to use this tool (when searching for specific keys) and clarifies the appropriate use case for listing/browsing. The pagination note also sets expectations for bulk listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct entities and actions, but a few pairs like create_keys/set_translation and list_keys/search_keys have overlapping functionality. The descriptions clearly differentiate their use cases, so ambiguity is limited.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, get_, list_, set_, etc.), making the API predictable. The only slight deviation is machine_translate, but it still reads as a single action verb.
With 22 tools, the server covers many aspects of translation management, but the count is slightly above the ideal range. Each tool has a clear purpose, though some could potentially be consolidated without loss of functionality.
The core key and translation lifecycle is well covered, but there are notable gaps: languages only support create and list (no update/delete), tags can be added but not removed, and projects lack get/update/delete operations. These omissions may require workarounds.
